Expect for "@" when doing "complete break ada" on gdb.ada/complete.exp

[deliverable/binutils-gdb.git] / gdb / testsuite / gdb.ada / complete.exp

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/complete.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/complete.exp
index 1b65efabd09a5f552ce49456452a64fc620338be..ac2bf850771eebae65a5075e99ffeb1ab4dcce1a 100644 (file)
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/complete.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/complete.exp
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Copyright 2005, 2007, 2009-2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# Copyright 2005-2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 #
 # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
@@ -13,18 +13,10 @@
 # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 # along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
 
-if $tracelevel then {
-    strace $tracelevel
-}
-
 load_lib "ada.exp"
 
-set testdir "complete"
-set testfile "${testdir}/foo"
-set srcfile ${srcdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}.adb
-set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}
+standard_ada_testfile foo
 
-file mkdir ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testdir}
 if {[gdb_compile_ada "${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable [list debug ]] != "" } {
   return -1
 }
@@ -46,25 +38,12 @@ proc test_gdb_complete { expr expected_output } {
 }
 
 # A convenience function that verifies that the "complete EXPR" command
-# does not genearte any output.
+# does not generate any output.
 
 proc test_gdb_no_completion { expr } {
-    # FIXME: brobecker/2007-12-27: How do you verify that the command
-    # output is actually really empty???  For now, the following does
-    # not verify this at all:
-    test_gdb_complete "$expr" ""
+    gdb_test_no_output "complete p $expr"
 }
 
-# A convenience function that joins all the arguments together,
-# with a regexp that matches zero-or-more end of lines in between
-# each argument.  This function is ideal to write the expected output
-# of a GDB command that generates more than a couple of lines, as
-# this allows us to write each line as a separate string, which is
-# easier to read by a human being.
-
-proc multi_line { args } {
-    return [join $args "\[\r\n\]*"]
-}
 # Try a global variable, only one match should be found:
 
 test_gdb_complete "my_glob" \
@@ -104,6 +83,16 @@ test_gdb_no_completion "exported"
 test_gdb_complete "<Exported" \
                   "p <Exported_Capitalized>"
 
+# While at it, make sure we can print the symbol too, using the '<'
+# notation.
+gdb_test "p <Exported_Capitalized>" " = 2"
+
+# Confirm that we can't print the symbol without the '<' notation.
+gdb_test "p Exported_Capitalized" \
+    "No definition of \"exported_capitalized\" in current context."
+gdb_test "p exported_capitalized" \
+    "No definition of \"exported_capitalized\" in current context."
+
 # A global symbol, created by the binder, that starts with __gnat...
 test_gdb_complete "__gnat_ada_main_progra" \
                   "p __gnat_ada_main_program_name"
@@ -161,6 +150,7 @@ test_gdb_complete "external_ident" \
 test_gdb_complete "pck" \
                   [multi_line "(p pck\\.ad\[sb\])?" \
                               "(p pck\\.ad\[sb\])?" \
+                              "p pck.ambiguous_func" \
                               "p pck.external_identical_one" \
                               "p pck.inner.inside_variable" \
                               "p pck.local_identical_one" \
@@ -172,6 +162,7 @@ test_gdb_complete "pck" \
 test_gdb_complete "pck." \
                   [multi_line "(p pck\\.ad\[sb\])?" \
                               "(p pck\\.ad\[sb\])?" \
+                              "p pck.ambiguous_func" \
                               "p pck.external_identical_one" \
                               "p pck.inner.inside_variable" \
                               "p pck.local_identical_one" \
@@ -183,4 +174,54 @@ test_gdb_complete "pck." \
 test_gdb_complete "<pck__my" \
                   "p <pck__my_global_variable>"
 
+# Very simple completion, but using the interactive form, this time.
+# The verification we are trying to make involves the event loop,
+# and using the "complete" command is not sufficient to reproduce
+# the original problem.
+
+if { [readline_is_used] } {
+    set test "interactive complete 'print some'"
+    send_gdb "print some\t"
+    gdb_test_multiple "" "$test" {
+       -re "^print some_local_variable $" {
+           send_gdb "\n"
+           gdb_test_multiple "" "$test" {
+               -re " = 1$eol$gdb_prompt $" {
+                   pass "$test"
+               }
+           }
+       }
+    }
+}
 
+# Usually, parsing a function name that is ambiguous yields a menu through
+# which users can select a specific function.  This should not happen during
+# completion, though.
+test_gdb_complete "ambig" \
+                  [multi_line "p ambiguous_func" \
+                              "p ambiguous_proc" ]
+test_gdb_complete "ambiguous_f" \
+                  "p ambiguous_func"
+test_gdb_complete "ambiguous_func" \
+                  "p ambiguous_func"
+
+# Perform a test intented to verify the behavior where the number
+# of possible completions is very large.  The goal is not to verify
+# precisely the list returned by the complete command (this depends
+# on too many parameters -- targets, compiler version, runtime, etc).
+# However, we want to sanity-check each one of them, knowing that
+# each result should start with "break ada" and that the proposed
+# completion should look like a valid symbol name (in particular,
+# no uppercase letters...).  See gdb/22670.
+
+gdb_test_no_output "set max-completions unlimited"
+
+set test "complete break ada"
+gdb_test_multiple "$test" $test {
+    -re "^$test$eol\(break ada(\[a-z0-9._@\])*$eol\)+$gdb_prompt $" {
+        pass $test
+    }
+    -re "\[A-Z\].*$gdb_prompt $" {
+       fail "$test (gdb/22670)"
+    }
+}